Indifference and ignorance: Delving deep into the Clinton e-mail saga

Clinton wasn't alone in mishandling communications, classified data.

Read the whole story

 

[CraigJ ✅]

BullBearMS[/url]":1h1lqox5]

BioTurboNick[/url]":1h1lqox5]

BullBearMS[/url]":1h1lqox5]Funny how nothing she orders done is ever her fault.

You're really grinding that axe to a razor edge here.

If she specifically ordered them to exclude particular work-related e-mails, then yes, that would be really bad. If she just gave them a general directive and trusted them to carry it out, and they messed up, that would not be.

Sure, it's just a total mystery how one of the emails that completely negated the false story she had been telling in public for a year just happened to "accidentally" got deleted.

Just like every email belonging to skippy the campaign intern who she brought into State to run her home mail server just happened to disappear.

When not even the senior political team at MSNBC can force themselves to buy into the long string of lies coming out of her campaign on this matter, you have to be especially naive to imagine everyone is going to buy into the fairy tales she and her campaign have been spinning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkJE0U8Qby4

When not even a media outlet as friendly to Democratic politicians as MSNBC is can choke this much BS down...

And Megan Kelly beat on Trump. Does that mean Fox doesn't support Trump? One cherry picked story does not mean that everyone or even most commentators at MSNBC feel the same way.

http://www.msnbc.com/search/clinton%20email

 

[BullBearMS]

CraigJ[/url]":27ldsg4w]

BullBearMS[/url]":27ldsg4w]

BioTurboNick[/url]":27ldsg4w]

BullBearMS[/url]":27ldsg4w]Funny how nothing she orders done is ever her fault.

You're really grinding that axe to a razor edge here.

If she specifically ordered them to exclude particular work-related e-mails, then yes, that would be really bad. If she just gave them a general directive and trusted them to carry it out, and they messed up, that would not be.

Sure, it's just a total mystery how one of the emails that completely negated the false story she had been telling in public for a year just happened to "accidentally" got deleted.

Just like every email belonging to skippy the campaign intern who she brought into State to run her home mail server just happened to disappear.

When not even the senior political team at MSNBC can force themselves to buy into the long string of lies coming out of her campaign on this matter, you have to be especially naive to imagine everyone is going to buy into the fairy tales she and her campaign have been spinning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkJE0U8Qby4

When not even a media outlet as friendly to Democratic politicians as MSNBC is can choke this much BS down...

And Megan Kelly beat on Trump. Does that mean Fox doesn't support Trump? One cherry picked story does not mean that everyone or even most commentators at MSNBC feel the same way.

http://www.msnbc.com/search/clinton%20email

Did they spend an entire segment talking about how Trump has been lying for an entire year and even after he gets caught red handed his response is to simply tell more lies?

Because that's the reaction we got from the entire senior Political team at MSNBC to the Clinton camp's response to the State Department IG report.

People can watch it for themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkJE0U8Qby4

Frankly, they get it right too. It would have been better to finally just stop lying when you get caught red handed and apologize and announce you're going to try to move on.

 

[donaldbraman]

arslongavitabrevis[/url]":20htpm5n]

Steveha7[/url]":20htpm5n]I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is relevant where intent or knowledge is an element of the crime.

As a professor of criminal law, I commend your summary of the doctrine of mistake of law.

 

[shadedmagus]

GenericAnimeBoy[/url]":q0shtlf2]
Isn't it a basic principle of information security that a secure system is worthless if people have to work around it to do their jobs? Obsolete, slow, unweildy, and otherwise hard-to-use technology is a security liability in and of itself. While it is true that some of the inconvenience and extra steps required for working within a secured system can't be entirely eliminated, those liabilities need to be managed and balanced against the need to accomplish the mission. "Just Follow The Rules" is not an acceptable response when following the rules clearly prevents the job from getting done.

This, right here. I was horrified hearing a former Marine talk about the password rules for the military network being so onerous that everyone just wrote down their passwords whenever they had to change.

Many other people have stated this, but it bears repeating: if your system is so rigid that people have to work around it in order to do their jobs, the system needs to change - not the people.

 

[ciscog33k]

passive0[/url]":uixals5n]One point that is mentioned, but I feel deserves greater emphasis:

The State Department's e-mail system and network have been repeatedly hacked in the last four years, including intrusions by attackers from Russia, China, and Iran

From everything I've read, these emails were better off on Clinton's server. Not saying that means it was the right way to address the situation, but from an absolute perspective, it seems like there's a demonstrable good to it, while any bad effects are just speculation. As an IT Professional who deals with poorly secured system every day, that's a pretty reasonable outcome.

Erm, maybe get the facts straight before making assertions. The system they use for classified stuff was not hacked. Just the .gov (unclassified) system, a place classified has no more place than on Clinton's server, so no, that doesn't make this better. And it wouldn't have been better if they'd placed that info on those servers.

 

[donaldbraman]

mltdwn[/url]":3f00q8qi]

arslongavitabrevis[/url]":3f00q8qi]

Steveha7[/url]":3f00q8qi]I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is relevant where intent or knowledge is an element of the crime.

Except the law specifically states it is gross negligence that is the crime. The ONLY knowledge required for gross negligence is that you KNOW you are doing something you aren't supposed to. Given that she had to sign a legal document when she got her security clearence that specifically said not to do what she did, that she is a lawyer, and that she did it anyways pretty much means she was grossly negligent. She intentionally, and with knowledge of the requirements of her position for security and what was permissable, used a personal email server for her state department email.

Actually, the standard is totally unclear, and intentionally so. As legal realists have long noted, it is designed to give jurors the ability to punish conduct that they believe rises to the level of criminality without specifying precisely what that is. The FBI determined that it would be hard to convince a jury she was guilty. In the end, THAT is the legal standard.

 

[ciscog33k]

donaldbraman[/url]":1km4xo81]

mltdwn[/url]":1km4xo81]

arslongavitabrevis[/url]":1km4xo81]

Steveha7[/url]":1km4xo81]I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is relevant where intent or knowledge is an element of the crime.

Except the law specifically states it is gross negligence that is the crime. The ONLY knowledge required for gross negligence is that you KNOW you are doing something you aren't supposed to. Given that she had to sign a legal document when she got her security clearence that specifically said not to do what she did, that she is a lawyer, and that she did it anyways pretty much means she was grossly negligent. She intentionally, and with knowledge of the requirements of her position for security and what was permissable, used a personal email server for her state department email.

Actually, the standard is totally unclear, and intentionally so. As legal realists have long noted, it is designed to give jurors the ability to punish conduct that they believe rises to the level of criminality without specifying precisely what that is. The FBI determined that it would be hard to convince a jury she was guilty. In the end, THAT is the legal standard.

It's not up to FBI to determine what the standard is. The only reason it was left up to FBI was because Lynch was dirtied by Bill Clinton.

 

[jwo7777777]

The 2016 Presidential Campaign season, brought to you by the adjective: "Haughty".

 

[2136enfield]

arcite[/url]":3ea0xlqp]I'm sick and tired of hearing about these damn emails! ---said some old guy.

You mean, said Hilary.

 

[veldrin]

At this point, I'm beginning to think certain writers here at Ars are just taking the piss. This is what, the fourth article since Comey's announcement that the FBI would not be recommending charges? We get less coverage of more topical politics/tech intersection stories.

Unlike some, I'm fine with Ars having covered the topic, but at this point it's looking more like sour grapes than any particular newsworthiness. Everything that there is to be said on the subject has already been said..repeatedly. Is there some sponsorship we should know about? I'm beginning to feel like Breitbart started leaking all over Ars when an Ethernet cable came loose.

 

[AHvivere]

donaldbraman[/url]":23k8wa8c]

mltdwn[/url]":23k8wa8c]

arslongavitabrevis[/url]":23k8wa8c]

Steveha7[/url]":23k8wa8c]I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is relevant where intent or knowledge is an element of the crime.

Except the law specifically states it is gross negligence that is the crime. The ONLY knowledge required for gross negligence is that you KNOW you are doing something you aren't supposed to. Given that she had to sign a legal document when she got her security clearence that specifically said not to do what she did, that she is a lawyer, and that she did it anyways pretty much means she was grossly negligent. She intentionally, and with knowledge of the requirements of her position for security and what was permissable, used a personal email server for her state department email.

Actually, the standard is totally unclear, and intentionally so. As legal realists have long noted, it is designed to give jurors the ability to punish conduct that they believe rises to the level of criminality without specifying precisely what that is. The FBI determined that it would be hard to convince a jury she was guilty. In the end, THAT is the legal standard.

Do a jury of 12 POG's and she'd be making rocks into gravel.

 

[BullBearMS]

donaldbraman[/url]":3qeccva4]

mltdwn[/url]":3qeccva4]

arslongavitabrevis[/url]":3qeccva4]

Steveha7[/url]":3qeccva4]I've always heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is relevant where intent or knowledge is an element of the crime.

Except the law specifically states it is gross negligence that is the crime. The ONLY knowledge required for gross negligence is that you KNOW you are doing something you aren't supposed to. Given that she had to sign a legal document when she got her security clearence that specifically said not to do what she did, that she is a lawyer, and that she did it anyways pretty much means she was grossly negligent. She intentionally, and with knowledge of the requirements of her position for security and what was permissable, used a personal email server for her state department email.

Actually, the standard is totally unclear, and intentionally so. As legal realists have long noted, it is designed to give jurors the ability to punish conduct that they believe rises to the level of criminality without specifying precisely what that is. The FBI determined that it would be hard to convince a jury she was guilty. In the end, THAT is the legal standard.

By that standard, Bush wasn't guilty of an illegal torture regime.

Face facts, sufficiently wealthy and powerful people are no longer prosecuted in the United States, and no, that doesn't suddenly become OK because they happen to have a D after their name.

 

[You Got New Legs Lt. Dan!]

danstl[/url]":2rtmhqf7]The crazy thing about all of this is that it appears that at least some (though it may be most or all) the "classified messages" were sent from another individual using a non-secure channel in the first place... SO it would make sense that the someone in Hillary's positiion would assume that it was not classified. AS classified info was sent to through the secured internal communication channels. In retrospect it is easy to see that someone marked something with a this was classified, BUT the email being sent to a non-secure system from another non-secure system was in clear violation of the policies in place in the first place.

This entire thing is a mess, and I would have to imagine the biggest reason for not prosecuting and or digging further into who originally sent some of these messages (as talked about by Comey) is simply the sweater thread effect... If you pull this string the fall-out could be massive. It was not just Clinton that was breaking with policy, but lots of people, and this crosses party lines as well, it most likely is still happening (people using personal accounts to send something that should have been sent only through secure channels). It is simply the downside to having technology at our fingertips.

The only good solution moving forward (IMO) would be to get mobile devices and or other ways for people that are very mobile to be able to access the information they need, when they need it. We live in a age where minutes if not seconds can be determining factors, and being able to only access information of high level from one location is inadequate for someone that is continually traveling outside of the country to our embassies around the world...


I can just see it. FBI Director: "Hey Guys! So we followed up on who sent those classified emails in the first place over unsecured channels, who sent it to them in turn, ect ect. Turns out, pretty much everyone in Congress with any sort of clearance has! And their aides! I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised, that old, entitled, and largely technologically illiterate people have trouble with modern InfoSec, but there it is! Per the committees prior recommendations, we're prosecuting everyone involved of course, so if you'll all look under your seats... You get a indictment, and you get a indictment, everybody gets indictment!"

At a certain point, if you make people's lives difficult enough in pursuit of an abstract goal that they don't really understand, they'll look for workarounds. And if they have any real power, they'll be successful at it! Your challenge, IT people of America, is to build a reasonably secure system, that, and this is critical here, even technological illiterates can use.

Whenever you try to force people to do something against their nature without a meaningful structure to enforce it, and they go ahead and work around you and consequences result, the failure is on you. Not that this issue is unique to IT, but IT seems to magnify it with a combination of low institutional power, a lack of priority, a lack of immediate consequences for ignoring them, and deep seated communication issues resulting from highly technical people with low social skills trying to order around highly non technical people with high social skills.

 

[Alan H.]

Snark218[/url]":268a81kb]

Isahaya[/url]":268a81kb]Sounds familiar. This guy did very similar things and was prosecuted by the FBI for it:
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials

The major - and obviously critical - difference being that they could establish clear intent to mishandle classified information in his case. They could not do so in Clinton's case. That's not a minor point, and it doesn't make what she did equivalent to his case, as much as conservatives desperately want to conflate them.

Go ahead, ap up the media-provided pablum. The truth is, intent is not a required element of the State Secrets Act. And if you engage some critical thinking, you'll understand why such statutes would fail if intent was a required element.

 

[graylshaped]

Deep breath. Set aside political preference.

Reconcile the reaction to her approach to communications "based on precedent set by previous occupants of her office," with that accorded the reaction to those prior Secretaries, please, re-calibrating based on factors for Congressional funding and how governmental IT standards evolve at a different pace from technology as a whole.

Manufactured tempest in a politically-sensitive media teapot.

 

[FreeDemo]

You don't expect a white woman who has been living on top of the world all her life knows about personal security or would she gives a damn about it. This guy Joe stood at the corner street selling drugs properly knows more about s3curity than she does. And this is not just about her, she is the one got sucked in for now and they are making an example out of her. And as for the rest of the politicians and law makers they are in the same boat as Clinton did and none of them don't give a damned for the security either. You think they know? Ha..

No mentioning of Obama of sending emails to Clinton for the last good 4 years when she was the head of the state. If she gets indicted? Ooops!! You are messing with the man.

 

[drachasor]

KeillRandor[/url]":1ag3ugq5]

villanim[/url]":1ag3ugq5]

Snark218[/url]":1ag3ugq5]

Isahaya[/url]":1ag3ugq5]Sounds familiar. This guy did very similar things and was prosecuted by the FBI for it:
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials

The major - and obviously critical - difference being that they could establish clear intent to mishandle classified information in his case. They could not do so in Clinton's case. That's not a minor point, and it doesn't make what she did equivalent to his case, as much as conservatives desperately want to conflate them.

Under the statute (18 U.S.C. section 793(f)), it’s a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or “through gross negligence." Comey summed up Clinton’s behavior as “extremely careless.” How is that not gross negligence? Yet Comey let her off the hook, citing lack of intent. But negligence doesn’t require intent. Compromising national secrets is such a grave offense that it requires either intent or negligence. Lack of intent is, therefore, no defense. But one can question that claim as well. Yes, it is safe to assume that there was no malicious intent to injure the nation. But Clinton clearly intended to set up an unsecured private server. She clearly intended to send those classified emails. She clearly received warnings from her own department about the dangers of using a private email account.

She meant to do what she did. And she did it. Intentionally.

************793 IS NOT THE LAW YOU'RE LOOKING FOR**********

The one you should be/need to look at is 1924:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 (18 U.S. Code § 1924)

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

To clarify on 793(f). At best a case could be made she violated 793(f)(1), but that hasn't been enforced pretty much ever. It is violated, but it is NEVER prosecuted. So Clinton not being prosecuted over it means nothing. They would never prosecute anyone else over it either.

The problem with 1924, is that it requires intent. And since these were email chains that showed up through the unclassified system on an email Clinton used for unclassified discussions, there just isn't clear intent at all. As anyone who actually read with an unbiased eye can clearly read, Clinton used secure fax system and other non-email systems to communicate on non-unclassified matters.

Frankly, they probably can't even prove she read most or any of those email chains. The high up the chain of command you go, the less you'll read an entire email about some matter unless you really need to know all the minor details. Usually you only have time for a summation or to get broad strokes -- assuming it is something you really need to know details about at all. There's a lot of junk email chains that people get and don't read.

This isn't even getting into how things can be classified Top Secret just because it is easier to classify a whole document TS rather than go through each individual paragraph and decide what is what. Which means if any part of that TS document, including bits that have no need for classification, show up anywhere else, then it is a "breach." That can include telling someone you sent them an email about something classified (which is almost always fine in practical terms). And it can be necessary to send such emails, since each system uses its own computer on its own network, needing a separate id card that must be stored separately and securely. To say nothing of the fact some people have to travel from their usual location to access a secure network. Fact is, if you investigate anyone with S or TS clearance, you'll probably find violations if you look really hard. Most of them are just meaningless. And most of the time these are not prosecuted -- usually it is minor details that shouldn't really need to be S or TS that got mentioned to someone else with S or TS who was also involved on a given project. Occasionally slip-ups happen though, but first it would be some sort of verbal warning before we even get into an official reprimand (unless it was a major screwup).

And of course, we have things that are classified even when they are public knowledge and have newspaper articles about them. CIA drone strikes in non-enemy countries like Pakistan are TS even after the fact, despite the fact they are reported and aren't a secret. Mention any detail from a newspaper article on one and you've violated security protocols if it isn't on the TS network.

The reason why there's no prosecution is because, just like the FBI indicated, they wouldn't prosecute anyone over this. There might be some administrative action, perhaps even a firing depending on what the info was, but there'd never be a legal case. To demand Clinton get prosecuted is to demand a double-standard.

Of course, most people talking about this don't even understand that the unclassified, secret, and TS networks are different and you can't send an email from one to another. The latter two don't even allow internet access. To say nothing of understanding how these systems are used in practice. Though it does seem the State Department has a history of being sloppy -- however it also has a really lousy IT budget which makes it hard for them to setup a good system. Seems like lots of systemic problems that need to be fixed to me.

 

[NickBII]

BullBearMS[/url]":161v74bw]For all the people claiming Clinton only did what others had done (Powell in particular), the senior political team at MSNBC (hardly a Clinton unfriendly media outlet) debunked that quite thoroughly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkJE0U8Qby4

If you think there's such a thing as a Clinton-friendly outlet you're delusional. They don't give journalists access for fear of being misrepresented, so journalists a) don't owe them the benefit of the doubt, and b) have very little to report on them except whatever the anti-Clinton flavor-of-the-month is.

And if you actually watch the video you insist on linking to repeatedly you'll note it says nothing about the topic we're discussing.

They blast the hell out of her ethics, but they never refer to any statutes, and all recent Ars articles are about Federal Criminal charges. Federal criminal charges are based on specific statutes with penalties, and I have yet to hear a coherent case that she violated any statutes with penalties.

 

[NickBII]

Questors[/url]":1l972hdr]

Snark218[/url]":1l972hdr]

Isahaya[/url]":1l972hdr]Sounds familiar. This guy did very similar things and was prosecuted by the FBI for it:
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials

The major - and obviously critical - difference being that they could establish clear intent to mishandle classified information in his case. They could not do so in Clinton's case. That's not a minor point, and it doesn't make what she did equivalent to his case, as much as conservatives desperately want to conflate them.

Intent is not necessary to secure and indictment. Why does intent continue to be stated as a necessary component to charge and prosecute Hillabeast? INTENT IS NOT NECESSARY to prosecute in cases like this.. This is worse than the perpetual lie that the GTX 1080 performance doubles the GTX 980. Together these two tidbits of false information continue to perpetuate themselves through people not reading and/or listening.

Goddamn the legal buffoonery in anything involving the Clintons can get ridiculous.

No, intent is not necessary to start the Prosecutorial process. They can prosecute literally anyone (lets say: you), for anything (you just hadta use your time machine to kill Abe Lincoln and frame a mediocre actor for it, you artist-hating bastard). But if they expect to not be shat upon by the Judge they have to come up with a scenario that a) fits the evidence, and b) isn;t going to collapse into a pile of Reasonable-Doubt-destroyed-goo the nanosecond a defense attorney looks at it.

In this case strictly speaking "intent" is probably an over-simplification. But every law that can be used in federal Court is a Federal Espionage statute (contrary to Executive Branch fuck belief, you cannot be sent to prison for violating Executive branch rules unless you also violated a statute), and all Federal Espionage statutes include some element of "willfulness," "knowingness," or "gross negligence." Which means you have to prove that a) Hillary deliberately messed up with classified info (which requires she knew the info was classified), b) knew she was screwing up with classified info (ditto), or c) consciously acted extremely carelessly with said info (and you can;t consciously be careless about classified info if you don't know the info is Classified).

 

[NickBII]

villanim[/url]":e8qdwqer]

Snark218[/url]":e8qdwqer]

Isahaya[/url]":e8qdwqer]Sounds familiar. This guy did very similar things and was prosecuted by the FBI for it:
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials

The major - and obviously critical - difference being that they could establish clear intent to mishandle classified information in his case. They could not do so in Clinton's case. That's not a minor point, and it doesn't make what she did equivalent to his case, as much as conservatives desperately want to conflate them.

Under the statute (18 U.S.C. section 793(f)), it’s a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or “through gross negligence." Comey summed up Clinton’s behavior as “extremely careless.” How is that not gross negligence? Yet Comey let her off the hook, citing lack of intent. But negligence doesn’t require intent. Compromising national secrets is such a grave offense that it requires either intent or negligence. Lack of intent is, therefore, no defense. But one can question that claim as well. Yes, it is safe to assume that there was no malicious intent to injure the nation. But Clinton clearly intended to set up an unsecured private server. She clearly intended to send those classified emails. She clearly received warnings from her own department about the dangers of using a private email account.

She meant to do what she did. And she did it. Intentionally.

Is it too much to fucking ask that a grown-ass adult with a simple legal definition question look in the goddamned legal dictionary himself?

To quote several:
"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care."

"Gross negligence, carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil."

"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care."

See that word "conscious?" That is a very important word. To prove she was grossly negligent of doing anything involving classified info you have to prove, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, that she knew the info was classified. Otherwise she was not conscious she was doing anything of any sort with classified info, and the gross negligence standard has not been met. Since none of it had a header file, only a handful of the emails had markings of any sort, and almost all the info seems to have been sent her by other people (who presumably knew the rules), good mother-fucking-luck on that point.

 

[Dayturn]

No, but Clinton is alone wanting to become the next US president.

She is unfit for that job and should be charged like everyone else who have been charged for significantly smaller breaches.

 

[Beckerjr]

And Hilary wonders why her honesty rating is so low...

 

[georgeh2k]

I've heard so much about how Hillary Clinton and her staff were wrong. I haven't heard anything before this story about how the NSA people were wrong.

The NSA was hellbent on warrantlessly spying on everyone, in violation of laws, willfully bypassing even the FISA courts, and likely in violation of the US Constitution. But when people in Clinton's State Department called on the NSA to provide a workable solution for her to use a secure smartphone, the NSA could not be bothered!

The people in the NSA who rejected the State Department's requests for usable, secure smartphones should be fired immediately. Sure, Hillary Clinton was wrong. But the people with the technical expertise, like those in the NSA, did not care about the security of internal government communications. Those NSA people had no reason not to understand the magnitude of securing government communications from outside attackers. That is extremely disturbing.

 

[Gooberslot]

ziegler[/url]":kt37jq1w]still not understanding how you get a subpoena for an email server then you get three months to scrub it of content before surrendering it. How is that not obstruction of justice or destruction of evidence?

Compare that to Gibson Guitar and how their records were secured by the Justice Department when they were raided.

I don't think this point gets brought up enough. Even if Comey is right and sending possibly classified emails isn't a big enough deal to prosecute over there's still the very real crime of destruction of evidence. I guarantee you that anyone else who decided to pick and choose which emails to turn over would be facing those charges.

 

[frankdozier]

ITT: Trump will win. We're all fucked. And we don't even realize it.


Oh well

 

[FreeDemo]

frankdozier[/url]":lh82y7x1]ITT: Trump will win. We're all fucked. And we don't even realize it.


Oh well

Trump and Sanders are not one of the corporations so "they" don't want them. Clinton is.

 

[shaguarwkl]

Sound like to me that State just needs a regular 4-5 year IT upgrade. I believe the DOD should be able to spare the cost of a few bombs so that State has the budget to do it

 

[Jobot]

calson33[/url]":agv0vy6i]This sounds a lot like something I have seen in many companies - An inflexible/incompetent IT team that pushes non-IT people to use insecure outside solutions just to get their job done.

Before we blame IT too quickly consider most companies don't have laws governing how their communications occur. And it's usually not considered treason when their IT guy gives you a backdoor because the standard secure path is too inconvenient.

 

[Hapticz]

even for a lay person, her simplistic distrust of the demands to use secure communications for international information would seem as though she was paranoid of the existing system, choosing to sidestep it. cloak and dagger aside, we the people, MUST NOT BE FOOLED AGAIN!

 

[DarthSlack]

TechCritic[/url]":336ughac]

Clinton did a great job of orchestrating this whole thing, and she managed to wipe out all but circumstantial evidence. So it's true that the evidence of intent is weak, but this article is clearly written to obscure there convenient and unlikely result for Hillary of this perfect storm of incompetence. Incompetent systems due to burecracy and executive egos are commonplace, but how often do they result in financial windfall or a boost to brand image? Exactly

This is a fine example of what I love about conspiracy theorists in general and the Clinton Hate Machine in particular.....


Don't you think that if Hillary were intelligent enough to orchestrate the whole thing, she would have been intelligent enough to keep it out of the public eye entirely? I mean come on, if you're gonna assign evil superpowers to the woman, at least be consistent.

 

[Hapticz]

oh definitely, a nice 700 million dollar contract to the 'lowest bidder', to provide upgrades, new hardware, re-education, follow up maintenance and, ohhh yes, 'cost plus" for all those unforeseen items. could be a real nice deal for another mega corporation to suck the taxpayers for. for years to come...

shaguarwkl[/url]":2wj7edmx]Sound like to me that State just needs a regular 4-5 year IT upgrade. I believe the DOD should be able to spare the cost of a few bombs so that State has the budget to do it

 

[Phyllis Stein]

Does anybody really care?
In war an individual military position changes on a daily basis.
Everybody already knows that America has the most powerful army the world has ever known.
Any competent enemy already knows approximately where the American army is deployed and ready to pounce.
But...The American Army might be in a different position tomorrow morning!
Ready to pounce.

 

[odikweos]

So when she's President, and something unexpected happens that, as one of the top 5 most important leaders in the world, she must understand and react to, should we expect that because she didn't know much about the topic, failure is just ok?

I think this demonstrates that she's not really fit for office, as she can't think strategically and lacks paranoia about what could go wrong/what good looks like. It's not conceptually difficult to imagine there being problems with having discussions in an unmonitored space that involve serious matters of state. It's also inconceivable that a person with such a long service record could have avoided training and briefings on the importance of such matters. The only sensible conclusion is she felt she was above the rules, and didn't care.

The worst part about this is, she's still head and shoulders better than Trump. Whar third party candidate??

 

[soulsabr]

jwo7777777[/url]":4kwhy7a7]The 2016 Presidential Campaign season, brought to you by the adjective: "Haughty".

And the number: "joint".

 

[CraigJ ✅]

Jobot[/url]":5mhjaxwq]

calson33[/url]":5mhjaxwq]This sounds a lot like something I have seen in many companies - An inflexible/incompetent IT team that pushes non-IT people to use insecure outside solutions just to get their job done.

Before we blame IT too quickly consider most companies don't have laws governing how their communications occur. And it's usually not considered treason when their IT guy gives you a backdoor because the standard secure path is too inconvenient.

Sarbanes Oxley says high

 

[CraigJ ✅]

Beckerjr[/url]":3jfdn1y9]And Hilary wonders why her honesty rating is so low...

Low information voters like yourself believing all the shit that comes out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth?

 

[CraigJ ✅]

ecity[/url]":2ubc8xhh]Again with this story?!

Yesterday a large group of tech leaders released an anti-Trump statement. Why was that tech story ignored by ARS while this non-story is covered day after day?

Clearly the editors of Ars are Trump supporters!

 

[chadversary]

The quality of journalism in this article convinced me to finally become a paying Ars subscriber. The US has a dire need for articles like this: in-depth, unbiased journalism on the technical issues of politics. Thank you, Sean, for the great job.

 

[CraigJ ✅]

Studbolt[/url]":3ushy14g]

SafetyHelmet[/url]":3ushy14g]

Snark218[/url]":3ushy14g]

Isahaya[/url]":3ushy14g]Sounds familiar. This guy did very similar things and was prosecuted by the FBI for it:
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials

The major - and obviously critical - difference being that they could establish clear intent to mishandle classified information in his case. They could not do so in Clinton's case. That's not a minor point, and it doesn't make what she did equivalent to his case, as much as conservatives desperately want to conflate them.

I understand your point. However, if I am pulled over for drunk driving, it doesn't matter if I got drunk on accident or if I purposely slammed a ton of booze and went out for a spin. Either way, I broke the law, and there are consequences to me for both intentional and accidental violation of it.

In this case, it seems to be she clearly broke the rules around having ANY level of federal security clearance, and I would assume some laws too around national security. If anything, she should be made an example of to prove that the highest levels of our government are not corrupt and above our laws, which are in place to uphold and protect our country, our people, and our constitution.

Can we vote to have an election do-over and get new candidates? :3

She's the most qualified candidate certainly since Truman, and the various fact checker websites have rated her the most truthful.

Compared to Trump, certainly. Not compared to Sanders.

 

[OccasionallyLeftHanded]

Thanks for the in-depth coverage of this. Nothing really surprising to anyone who's worked in a secure environment, government or corporate: the systems tend to be clumsy, overly-compartmented, generally a pain in the ass to use. I've seen salesmen have to leave their office and go to a coffee shop to communicate with their customers because their internal messaging service locked them out from that capability.

IT groups are under-budgeted, over-taxed and frequently 20 years behind the times technologically. There are, to this day, subterranean high-security data centers that have displays formatted with alternating green and white rows because the staff is so locked in to the old printed output motif.

The forehead slapping for me came not from Clinton's actions as Secretary, but from her response when this story first broke a year ago. First denial, then trying to laugh it off, then stonewalling, and finally delivering the requested content, 55,000 pages of it (as I recall), in print. Basically giving the finger to the investigators.

I knew back then this wasn't going to go away, and Clinton and/or her staff should've been intelligent enough to realize that as well. Whether due to arrogance or general incompetence, she and her team blew their chance to get this all behind them.